Public Bill Committee

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Clause 13

Paying for sexual services of a controlled prostitute: England and Wales

Question (5 February) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. Have you received a communication from the Government or any other representations about new clauses to be added to the Bill? Last Thursday, the Home Secretary announced that she would introduce new provisions about gang injunctions. That would be a significant addition to the Bill and, as we are halfway through our proceedings in Committee and have limited time left to discuss new clauses and existing clauses, we are obviously worried about whether we will have enough time to debate what seems to be a significant, new addition to the Bill that requires detailed scrutiny and examination. I am therefore interested to know whether you have received representations or any news about the matter.

Hugh Bayley: I have not received any representations, but I would not expect to do so. The rule is that the Committee can consider amendments or that I can call them only if they are tabled three sitting days before our proceedings. Does the Minister wish to comment?

Vernon Coaker: I shall take on board the hon. Gentlemans point of order and consider whether we can take the appropriate action.

Hugh Bayley: That will help the Committee.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I wish to ask two things. First, will it be possible for the Committee to be told first, or at least at the same time as others, when we will be debating the measure, as that is only polite. Secondly, I raised with the Deputy Leader of the House the matter of whether there would be adequate time for scrutiny of Bills such as the one under discussion both in Committee and on Report. He said that the Government would do their utmost to ensure that the only new clauses tabled on Report would be responses to the Committee and not extra chunks to be added to the Bill. Sometimes the Government have to do what they have to do, but I hope that the message is understood that we need adequate time on Report to discuss such matters, especially when new clauses are tabled late in Committee.

Hugh Bayley: That point of order was clearly a message for the Minister, not the Chair.

Vernon Coaker: The new provision to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch referred related to gangs, and the Government intend to table such a new clause for discussion in Committee, not on Report. It is the Governments intentionit is certainly mineto ensure that, as far as possible, we adhere to the commitment that the Home Secretary and I gave on the Floor of the House and here in Committee that we will have adequate time to discuss the various measures in the Bill and that we will have sufficient time to prepare for them.

Hugh Bayley: That was useful. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Hornchurch for raising those points of order, and to the Minister for informing us of his intentions.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I decided on Thursday to contribute to discussions on the clause. I listened carefully and necessarily patiently to the detailed argument made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, but I thought that we were in danger of omitting from the debateexcept for a passing reference to it when we reached clause stand partthe policy objective behind the clause.
I acknowledge that much of the discussion on Thursday afternoon was helpful in identifying ways in which the Bill can be improved, but I consider that those who were arguing for greater evidence to back up the basic approach of the Bill seemed to be quite happy to assert that the Bill was completely wrong, that it would be counter-productive and that there was no point in reducing demand for trafficked women who are prostitutes, without giving any evidence themselves to back up their assertions. I therefore want to spend a minute or two looking at the policy focus.
I admit that when I first discovered the Governments approach I too was a little sceptical, but once I read the Home Office publication, Tackling the Demand for Prostitution: A Review, in November 2008a very useful document that contains much of the evidence that the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon thought was missingit helps our understanding of the Governments position. It is very clear from information already in the public domain that almost every approach to reduce prostitution has weaknesses. However, on the evidence available it is reasonable to attempt to reduce demand for prostitution by operating a strict liability rule that will hopefully dampen demand, and in particularI will say more about this in a minutemake men think very seriously about the nature of the prostitution services that they are buying.

Nadine Dorries: Will the hon. Lady explain how the information will be imparted to men who pay for sexual services? Will there be a national advertising campaign to let men know that they are subject to strict liability when they use the services of a prostitute? If there is to be a campaign, that funding would be better channelled elsewhere. Men do not know what the law is now when they pay for sexual services, and I do not believe that they will know should the Bill be enacted.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If the hon. Lady had been here for the extensive debate that we had on the clause on Thursday, she would have known that that matter was dealt with by the Minister.

Evan Harris: The hon. Lady would accept that I was here last Thursday. She talks about the evidence in the Home Office review, but the academic evidenceif something is published and peer-reviewed it is evidence, otherwise it is opinion, which is valuable but different from evidenceis not in the Home Office review. In so far as it exists, there is a review of that academic evidence that has not even been published yet, let alone at the time the review was published, so would the hon. Lady accept that in strict terms the evidence is not there on either side in the Home Office review?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thought the hon. Gentleman might make that point. A great deal of the academic evidence is referred to in the report. My point is that it explains to some extent the logic behind the Governments thinking on why they opted for reducing the demand for the prostitution services of a woman who had been trafficked.
If we are serious about reducing demand, it is essential to make the purchasers of prostitution services responsible for their actions. The critical point is vigilance and circumspection about the women who are involved. The best way for purchasers of ensuring that they do not fall foul of the legislation is to either not use the services of prostitutes, or to significantly reduce that risk by being very careful, and perhaps using prostitutes who are in a collective or another setting where women are clearly not being controlled for gain, and where some aspects of womens safety can be guaranteed.
This deals very effectively with the criticism from the English Collective of Prostitutes. Useful criticisms were raised on its behalf by the GMB, but the union and the English collective have taken their eye off the policy direction in the clause, which is to try to reduce the number of women who are either trafficked into this country for prostitution or are forced into prostitution and controlled for gain.
The Bill will not further criminalise prostitutes, but it will criminalise the men who buy services from prostitutes who are controlled for gainwe took our eye off that particular policy focus on Thursday. It therefore is essential that we keep the strict liability clause, because if we start to alter it, we give men a number of possible defencesI am not suggesting for a minute that people should not be able to defend their actions, but we do not want to make it too complicated, have too many possible defences, or be too mealy-mouthed about it, because otherwise, the policy objective will simply be lost. The clause and the direction of the Bill can work only if we keep our eye on strict liability, because it is by making men very careful, responsible and circumspect about who they are buying services from that we will achieve reduction in demand for the services of women who are controlled for gain.

Nadine Dorries: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. We have been a well-mannered and polite Committee up until this point, but I am afraid that I feel obliged to put on the record the reasons for my absence on Thursday, as they were pointed out in such an ill-mannered way by the hon. Member for City of Durham.

Hugh Bayley: That is not a point for debate. The hon. Lady can contribute to the debate, but she cannot make that a point of order.

Paul Holmes: As we have heard, both in the debate on Tuesday and this morning, there are major concerns about the general intent of the clause. Many people believe that the introduction of a strict liability offence, together with the issue of controlling someone for gain, threatens to make the situation for sex workers in this country much worse, rather than better, even though the intention of the Bill is to improve the situation. Most people who are connected with the issue out on the street feel that, whatever the intention of the Bill, it will make matters worse.
I want to go into some detail on that. To put it on the record, I know that the language used in the Bill is gender neutral, and that the intention is not to talk purely about women as sex workers who are used by men as punters or customers. None the less, throughout the entire debate on Second Reading, and so far in Committee, the only terms that have been used throughout concern women being exploited by menwomen as sex workers, men as customers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell)indicated assent.

Paul Holmes: The Minister is nodding. I know that it is the intention of the Bill, but I still want to put on record the fact that the Bill is designed to talk about all sex workers, whether or not they are exploited by any customer. Although the largest category is women being used by men, there is a fairly large category of men who sell their services to other men, and also a much smaller, but none the less existing category of men who sell services to women. I want to put on the record the fact that the Bill is intended to apply to all sex workers and customers, not exclusively to women who are used by men.
One of the points on strict liability, which has already been rehearsed, is that it may simply be unenforceable. In that case, it would be another example of a headline, grandstanding pursuit, rather than an effort to introduce measures that work in practice. We discussed a little on Second Readingand during the evidence sessionsthe fact that the policy is based on the experience in Finland, the only country in the world that has gone down the route of introducing a strict liability crime for the customers of sex workers. As far as we understand it, the example in Finland, after two to three years, is that either nobody has been prosecuted at all, or that a few prosecutions have taken place in very recent months, but we do not know with what degree of success. Considering the research done by the Government, including visits to a number of countries with different approaches, that does not seem a good argument for adopting a the strict liability approach that has caused so much concern to so many of the people involved.

Evan Harris: In a sense I am answering the intervention of the hon. Member for City of Durham, who asked about what the evidence is on either side. The Government are introducing a strict liability test, which might make matters worse and criminalise thousands of people. Is the onus not on the Government to provide the evidence of effectiveness, rather on than on the Opposition to prove that it does not work, given that such a test has hardly been tried anywhere?

Paul Holmes: Absolutely. The same issue, which has been discussed a little in Committee and on Second Reading, arises with respect to the evidence for how bad the problem of sex trafficking is, for example. Likewise, the issue arises with regard to how many women are involved in prostitutionI apologise, I meant sex workers in general, including menpurely to pay for a drug habit, rather than for other reasons. The evidence in both cases, it has been argued, is quite flimsy. Certainly the figures put forward for the percentage of sex workers who are trafficked have been demolished by lots of the evidence submitted to the Committee, suggesting that the figures are grossly exaggerated.
I do not underestimate the problem. About seven years ago, a year after I was first elected, I went on a visit with UNICEF to Thailand and Laos to look at the issue of trafficked sex workers and, indeed, that of industrial slaves in some Thai factories. Children mainly came from Laos to Thailand to become sex workers, but some of them travelled on to the UK. For example, in Operation Pentameter, the biggest single category of people who were discovered as trafficked sex workerscertainly in the top six categoriescame from Thailand. Some other Members of Parliament and I looked at that seven years ago with UNICEF, so I certainly understand the problem, but a lot of evidence has been submitted to the Committee to suggest that there is considerable exaggeration about the percentage of sex workers who are trafficked women.
We have heard the arguments. While it may be true in London that there is a higher proportion of foreign sex workersthat does not necessarily mean that they are trafficked forcibly, or controlled against their willthat may not be the case elsewhere. I went with the BBC to do a programme on a project in Derby that works with sex workers on the street, offering support. That organisation said it had never once come across a trafficked sex worker in Derby, for example. We have heard other evidence for that case from other parts of the country.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Where is the hon. Gentlemans argument going? Is he trying to suggest that there are not that many women or male sex workers controlled for gain and that perhaps we do not need to have legislation or, indeed, do anything to try and reduce demand for people who fall into that category?

Paul Holmes: I am responding to the hon. Ladys comment that we need evidence on both sides. It is all very well saying that people who are worried about the negative impact of the Bill have not presented evidence, but they have done so, and I have given examples. The onus is on the Government, who have introduced the legislation. Almost uniformly, the people who work in this fieldfor example, the United Kingdom Network of Sex Work Projects, which works with 63 projects around the countrymost of whom are funded by the Government, say that the measures in the Bill will have a negative, rather than a positive, impact.
If we are looking for evidence-based policy making, especially if we are going down a route that may, with the best of intentions, make things worse, not better, we ought to be looking seriously at the evidence. We have rehearsed the argument in previous sittings that most of the evidence to which the Government refer has not even been published. How can we look at it? How can we evaluate it? How can we say that this evidence leads to that conclusion? What I was saying about Finland was that the Government went to look at New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden, but came up with the example of Finland, which alone in the world has adopted that approach, apparently without success so far. Where is the evidence of evidence-based policy making?

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my constituency is just up the road from Derby. I have heard that women from Thailand were trafficked into my constituency, ostensibly to work in massage parlours, but actually to work in brothels. That was well documented in The Mail on Sunday, among other newspapers. I have met women who have been trafficked into the UK for one purpose and who can then slip easily into prostitution.

Paul Holmes: I do not disagree with thatthe hon. Lady has given one piece of evidence from somewhere near Derby. I gave another piece of evidence from a sex workers project based in the centre of Derby, which said that it had never once come across a sex worker who had been trafficked into this country. There is differing evidence, and we should be looking far more closely at where that evidence leads us. It should be published for proper, rigorous analysis, rather than being based on headline figures which are often grossly exaggerated.
The scale of evidence on trafficked women uncovered by Operation Pentameter, parts 1 and 2two operations designed specifically to try to find trafficked women in the sex industrydoes not lead to the conclusion, as one hon. Member suggested on Second Reading, that 80 per cent. of all prostitutes are trafficked women. There have been some wild claims and we need to look at the serious evidence, rather than introduce possibly harmful legislation on the basis of partial headlines.

Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that it is wrong to suggestand I am not implying that the hon. Member for City of Durham intended to suggest thisthat people are not serious about tackling trafficking unless they support the offence? There are existing offences on trafficking, and on controlling prostitution under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and on kidnap and rape, all of which the Liberal Democrats support. It would be better to show whether they could be used more often, rather than taking the risk of going down this new path, which may make things worse.

Paul Holmes: Exactly. Those are points that I shall not make at length, because I made them in a Westminster Hall debate on the issue last year. I pointed out that the experience of Operation Pentameter 1 and 2 and of the police operation in Ipswich after the series of five murders was that, if the police and the authorities put serious effort into tackling issues of coerced sex workers and trafficked sex workers, they can tackle the problem. I am not suggesting that there is not a problem, but that we should deal with it effectively.
From the overwhelming evidence from people who work in the sex industry or who work to support those in the sex industry, I do not believe that the Bill is going to improve the situationit is going to make it worse. That is based on the evidence that I have looked at over the past seven years and on my experience of visiting Thailand, Laos, sex projects in Derby, taking evidence and going to meetings with the English Collective of Prostitutes and various other groups. The evidence shows overwhelmingly that the Bill, even though it has the best of intentions, is going to take us in the wrong direction, as it is based on fairly flimsy evidence.
The answer is to put serious police resources into tackling the issue. That was the evidence from Sweden. Some people cited Sweden as the example for criminalising all street prostitution or the purchase of sex on the street. However, it was rarely pointed out that in Sweden, as well as changing the law, the Government gave significant extra money to the police specifically to expand their policing of the problem. If the law says that something should not happen, but the police see it as a low priority among competing budgets, it will not be enforced properly. Simply enacting the Bill does not mean that any of its provisions will be enforced any better than the existing provisions that say that sex trafficking is totally illegal.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I asked where the argument was going. The hon. Gentleman has not covered the fact that the controlled for gain category is not only about trafficked women. Does he accept that this is a different policy approach and instrument from anything we have had in the past. It is about trying to reduce demand and trying to take the focus off women and criminalisation and putting it on people who purchase prostitution services and who are cavalier at best about the situation that has led women to offer those services in the first place. Finally, it has not been a universal condemnation from those organisations representing prostitutes; the criticism has mostly come from one aspect of prostitution services. If the hon. Gentleman is going to cite evidence, he should quote the whole evidence.

Paul Holmes: The overwhelming weight of evidence received by the Committee, both in our evidence sessions and in written submissions, is about the negative impact of the Bill. We took evidence from the POPPY project and another organisation that said that they totally support of the Bill. However, the UKNSP comprises 63 projects across the UK, all of which said that the Bill will have the reverse effect of what was intended. That is an overwhelming ratio of 63:2. I do not dispute that that is a radical statement of intent, but I do dispute whether it will achieve what it wants or whether it will make things much worse.

Lynda Waltho: The overwhelming evidence that we have heard supports what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but a lot of evidence did not come forward at the time. I am sure that we have all received the same briefing from CAREChristian Action Research and Educationand Beyond the Streets, a collaborative network that covers 50 grassroots organisations and outreach projects. What it says is the complete opposite of the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Yes, we have received a lot of evidence, but it was all one way and was deficient in some areas.

Paul Holmes: That comment illustrates one of my earlier points and one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. If a systematic review of the evidence has led the Government down the path to a radical statement of intention, which might, or might not, work, and may make the situation worse, that evidence should have been published so that we could look at it properly. Instead, we receive assertions from the Government that they have looked at the evidence and that it leads them in such a direction. However, they have not published the systematic evidence on which they say the provision is based. That is no way in which to proceed with a major change in the law that introduces a strict liability offence.
I shall outline the problems. Much of the argument has come from people who submitted evidence saying that the strict liability offence will be unenforceable. On 9 December 2008, Commander Gibson from the Metropolitan police said that it is going to be
very difficult to enforce.
That is from the horses mouth: the new lawthe radical statement of intentwill be difficult to enforce. The evidence in respect of pursuing sex work and prostitution is that the law could be difficult to enforce, but it could be done if the police have the incentive and resources to do itas with Pentameter 1 and 2 and the Ipswich project, which involved a lot of work by the local authorities and social services.
The lesson overall has always been that, simply telling sex workers that they should not do it or that it is really a shame that they do it and why do they not do something else will not work unless resources are put in from social services, housing, drug rehab and policing to help them move away from that lifestyle. The majority of them do not want that lifestyle, but they see no alternative, and the police are saying that the new strict liability law will be difficult to enforce.

Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman quote what the police officer said? Did the officer say that it was not enforceable because of the element of status or for some other reason? What were his actual words? I want to know exactly what he said.

Paul Holmes: Commander Gibsons actual words were that it was going to be
very difficult to enforce.
People on the other side of the fence such as lawyers, the Bar Council, Justice and other groups have said that, while the police fear that the law will be difficult to enforce on the streets, they consider that it will be difficult to enforce and get convictions in court. Magistrates have said that it will be difficult to get convictions in court because it is a case of strict liability. Let us suppose that the customer, male or female, has asked the sex worker, male or female, whether they have been trafficked or controlled against their will. The sex worker reassures them and says, No. However, if that is not true, the customer is still liable. It will be hard to get a magistrateor a jury, if the matter went to a higher courtto convict on such a flimsy basis. A commander in the Metropolitan police, the Bar Council and others are saying that such a law will be difficult to enforce. The experience in Finland of two and a half years also implies that it is pretty hard to obtain a prosecution, let alone make it stick.

Julie Kirkbride: I am listening to the hon. Gentlemans argument carefully, as the issue is difficult. To be absolutely clear, is he saying that even though an offence has been committed magistrates will not want to convict because they do not believe it is fair? Is that the import of what he is saying?

Paul Holmes: Yes, that is the implication of what magistrates I have talked to are saying. They are the first line of defenceoften, a £1,000 fine for such an offence will not reach a higher court, where a jury would be involved. Juries would certainly take that line, as they do with many crimes, applying common sense and justice. Magistrates to whom I have spoken to say that they would need quite a bit of convincing to destroy someones reputation and so on, but also to fine them £1,000 and give them a criminal conviction for a strict liability offence. If someone says, I took every possible step to ascertain that this person was not trafficked and not controlled against their will. They assured me of that. I could not see any issue there at all. There was no evidence that they were frightened, coerced or locked up, but it later turns out that that person was trafficked, the strict liability test comes in and the magistrate will have to find them guilty on that basis. Naturally, magistrates will be reluctant to do so.
Liberty said that the offence under clause 13
is drafted extremely broadly and applies regardless of whether the accused knew that any of the prostitutes activities were intentionally controlled for gain...What controlled for gain means is also very broad, encompassing any activity controlled...in the expectation of gain for anyone. Presumably this would cover the owner of a brothel.
We have heard the argument that the whole thing is drafted so broadly that it might make things much worsethe clause is unclear about who is involved and who is not. Some Government Members immediately pull a face at any mention of the English Collective of Prostitutes but, at the meetings that I have been to, the organisation and the sex workers with them seem to be rational and intelligent, putting forward rational arguments. The ECP has argued that there is already an effect, using the example of a raid on 18 December, just a few weeks ago, in Soho. Three police officers from Charing Cross clubs and vice unit visited a flat on Romilly street and issued a written notice against a Miss Tracey Ramsey, who works as a receptionist there. They intended to charge her with controlling prostitution for gain. The ECP says that Soho is one of the safest places in the UK for women in the sex industry to work:
As a receptionist, Ms Ramsey is womens first line of defence against violent attacks and exploitation.
If the police are already, under existing law or in preparation for the new law, charging a receptionist with control for gain and threatening to close down a flat or small brothel where women are operating safely off the streets, what will happen if the Government introduce their rather misguided legislation? Far from helping sex workers, it will have quite the reverse effect, making it much more difficult for them to operate safely.
That is supported by support groups. The United Kingdom Network of Sex Work Projects says:
There is no commonly-understood definition of controlled for gain and it is unclear how controlled for gain would be interpreted by magistrates. It is unreasonable to expect clients to discern a condition that is unclear, sometimes even to sex workers themselves, and which may be deliberately concealed. A strict liability offence is therefore unjust.
If we look at a parallel example, Scotland introduced legislation against kerb crawling. The Scottish Prostitutes Education Projectanother outreach group working on the streets with sex workerssaid at a meeting on 13 January, just a few weeks ago, that the effect of the legislation had been the absolute reverse of what the Scottish Government had expected and intended when they introduced it. Far from helping sex workers, it was making things much worse. SCOT-PEP said:
Women are working in isolation, which is more dangerous for them...There arent as many clients around but the ones who are around are the dangerous ones...The number of women on the streets has not decreased significantly.
The number of clients had decreased, but the clients who are on the streets now are the more dangerous ones
who dont care if they get a conviction. Theyre the men prepared to rape and beat...Theres far more violence now, and far more regular violence...The women are in more danger...Women do this to earn money, whether it be for drugs or to support their families and theyll keep doing it...Outsiders think prostitution is horrible and you couldnt do anything to make it worse.
However, SCOT-PEP said, the legislation has made things worse. That was not the intention, but it has made things worsemore dangerous, more difficult, and impossible to get help and advice to the women working out on the street. The danger highlighted by that parallel example is that we will get exactly the same from the legislation proposed by the Government.
Regarding the Swedish example, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said in discussions on a previous Bill:
I am also concerned that criminalising all sex buyers could force some of those involved in selling sex to continue to do so but to adopt more covert practices.
That is what we are seeing in Scotland with the kerb-crawling legislation. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
That would drive it underground and create a more hidden sex market, making it increasingly difficult for support services and enforcement agencies to identify and make contact with those individuals. That could expose them to heightened violence, exploitation and unsafe sexual practice.[Official Report, Criminal Justice and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2007; c. 567-68.]
If the hon. Gentleman thought that that was a danger of the Swedish example, and if SCOT-PEP says that that is the result of the Scottish example, will Ministers explain why they are confident that that will not be an indirect, unforeseen consequence of the Bill which, as we have heard, is a radical shift in British law and a radical leap into the dark, based on the experience of one country, Finland, where so far it clearly has not worked?

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, for reminding us of the importance of looking at the policy objectives of this particular measure. Described rightly by the hon. Member for Chesterfield as a radical approach, the clause amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and introduces a new offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute who is controlled for another persons gain.
Bearing in mind that we had an extensive debate on Thursday on the amendments to the clause, I shall give a brief background to explain how we have arrived at the current position. Some of the views that were expressed imply that the policy had somehow arrived on the back of an envelope with neither the support nor the evidence necessary to back it up. On the contrary: the Government published a co-ordinated prostitution strategy in January 2006, which made it clear that their policy was to address demand for prostitution by targeting those who pay for sex, and focusing on those areas where abuse and exploitation are commonplace. We built on that in January 2008 with the demand review, which explored the legislative and non-legislative options available as well as learning from the experiences of other countries, such asas had been mentionedSweden and the Netherlands.
The review involved key stakeholders and practitioners, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and organisations supporting individuals involved in prostitution, and a range of views were expressed. It also included an assessment of relevant academic research, which was fully referenced, an audit of enforcement and prosecution practice in England and Wales to identify best practice, an independent evaluation of approaches to tackling demand in nine other countries and ministerial visits to Sweden and the Netherlands to learn more.

Evan Harris: Do either of the two stages that the Minister mentioned the 2006 publication of the policy strategy and the launch in January 2008 of the reviewinvolve a specific consultation on the strict liability offence that we are discussing? He went on to say that the evidence in the review was fully referenced. Does that mean that when the review is finally published, we will be able to look at the references section of the article? Does fully referenced mean that the mere mortals among us who have not seen the review will be allowed to see it at some point before the Bill becomes law?

Alan Campbell: The review has been published, and it references the contributions that were taken into consideration. I think what the hon. Gentleman is talking about is the additionalfor want of a better termconsultation. We are currently looking at that short consultation. He will agree that we do not want to release into the public domain information that has not been properly looked at or dealt with according to the rules that should apply in such circumstances. In addition, we did not say to the contributors to that particular part of the consultation that we would make their views public. However, we will announce a date in the near future.

Evan Harris: There is some confusion. I accept that the review says with a few footnotes what came from where. But the review talks about another review by the university of Huddersfield of the evidence, and I assume that that is not merely opinion and submissions, but a proper review of the academic evidence and published literature. Has that been published? I am not talking about consultation responses, but I would be grateful if he will clarify what consultation there has been to date on that offence.

Alan Campbell: So that we can make progress, I will furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information that he seeks on the academic basis for the work that we are doing.
The Government made it clear at an early stage that we were looking at the demand side as opposed to the supply side of prostitution, and it became clear that we were looking at strict liability. We have not hidden our intention to make progress on that, and I can explain how we have arrived at strict liability rather than something else.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a very good point about the way in which the Committee has been conducted, and I fully endorse what she has said. I fear, however, that that consensus of approach, if not of opinion, was in danger of breaking down with the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and his colleague the hon. Member for Chesterfield.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon talked about existing offences on trafficking being able to deal with the problem. The reality is that we have done a great deal on trafficking. To some extent, we are world leaders on that matter. But let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of where that approach could lead if we are not careful. Imagine a raid, like Pentameter, on a brothel where women have been trafficked for sex and the traffickers are in the brothel. The women are in the brothel and so are the punters who are visiting to buy sex. We know what would happen to the traffickers. If they were caught, prosecuted and convicted, they would face lengthy prison sentences. We know what would happen to the women, because we have signed up to the convention that means we now have a national referral mechanism and they would be treated as victims. But unless we have a measure such as the one that we are proposing today, the men would walk away from that brothel and not be held to account.
Before the hon. Gentleman rises to say, But surely the women have been exploited to the point of rape, of course it would be appropriate if the men could be prosecuted and convicted for that. In reality the evidence is not always available, so we are left with a situation where all the people in the three parts of the story can be dealt with by existing law, except the men who go into that brothel, who disregard in many cases whether the women have been trafficked or are being controlled for gain, but nevertheless purchase sex from them. The measure that we are proposing intends to fill that gap.

Evan Harris: I accept that there is a strong argument that that gap should be filled. I just urge the Minister to remember that in our previous debate it was suggested by those on both Opposition Front Benches that a non-strict liability offence with objective recklessness would actually allow him to punish the people who are guilty of something equivalent to rape with more than a £1,000 fine. That has enormous merits, deals with all the concerns that we have just heard around strict liability, and provides a penalty to match the crime. That is what we urge him to consider.

Alan Campbell: I have agreed to look at some of the points that were raised on the amendments to the clause in the previous debate. We are confident that strict liability is necessary because, as I have explained, there is a gap that needs to be filled. The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with us in that regard. But there is also a very strong deterrent message that we need to send. If someone has purchased and used the services of a prostitute who has been controlled for gain or, heaven forbid, has been trafficked, and that someone says that they did not know, that is no excuse in those circumstances. We should not have to furnish the evidence that the hon. Gentleman is looking for to prove all the points that he raised in our previous discussions. We need to send out a strong message to men that such behaviour is not acceptable.

Paul Holmes: The principle of English law for centuries has supposedly been that one is innocent until proven guilty. The Minister wants to say that it is too difficult to prove people guilty, so we will find people guilty without any evidence. Why not go the whole hog, which is what the Government were partly considering with the Swedish law? But even that is a halfway house. Why not just say that the purchase of sex and the sale of sex are illegal? The Government seem to be getting to that by a roundabout route, by saying, That is a legal activity, but we will find you guilty even though there is no evidence to show that the sex worker you were with was trafficked or coerced.

Alan Campbell: These are part of the remarks that I want to go on to, but I shall say something about the principles of English law that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I want to refer to his comments where we part company, to a large extent. I cannot understand a system of criminal law that does not do everything that it can to tackle the exploitation of women, or men, who are put into these circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman got into a debate with himself, and others, around the number of trafficked women who are brought to this country for sexual exploitation. On the evidence that we have, most of the women who are trafficked into the country are brought here for sexual exploitation. He wanted to talk about numbers, but he said that his understandingfrom his experiences and conversations with organised groups, which I do not discountis that the number of sex workers who have been trafficked are exaggerated. He referred to the situation in Derby. It was pointed out in the evidence sessions that many of the people we are talking about are probably working on the streets of London, rather than in his, or my, constituency.
However, the point was also made that just because a person is a foreign prostitute does not mean that they are trafficked, and the hon. Gentleman repeated that. This is not just about trafficked womenand possibly menit is about people who are controlled for gain. However, it is wrong to traffic women into this country for sexual exploitation whether the figure is 4,000 or 40,000. It is still wrong and it is still this Parliaments obligation to do everything that it can to protect those women. It is not the only thing that we will be doing to tackle prostitution, but our view is that this strict liability is appropriate and proportionate.

Paul Holmes: We fear, along with most of the organisations working in the field and many legal organisations, that what is proposed will end up making things worse for sex workers. The fact that we disagree on the mechanism does not alter the fact that we agree just as much as the Minister that anyone involved in exploiting sex workers in this way should be punished by the full weight of the law. However, one has to find people guilty first.

Alan Campbell: This is a discussion that my later comments will address. I want to make some progress on this point and I will come back to the hon. Gentlemans remarks if I do not answer them directly. Part of the preparation for this measure was to visit other countries and look at their approaches. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing visited the Netherlands, where prostitution is regulated through a system of licensed brothels. He found that that regulation had not ended violence against prostitutes, it had not reduced trafficking and it had not reduced the involvement of organised crime in prostitution.
The review therefore concluded that criminal justice measures were the most effective way of protecting those involved in prostitution, who are vulnerable to exploitation. We also considered the option of criminalising payment for sex in all circumstances. We concluded that that was not the right approach. Instead, we concluded that measures should be targeted at reducing areas of the sex market involving the most vulnerablenamely those who have been trafficked, are being exploited, or are involved in street prostitution, who are mainly women
In answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfields point about Finland, we looked at the Finnish example. He said that he was not sure whether there had been any prosecutions there, but I can tell him that there have been. He then went on to make the point about the difficulty of prosecution and quoted, several times, the police view that it would be difficult. I accept that it will be difficult; we have never said that it would not be difficult. I even accept that it will be very difficultwe have never said anything else. However, it does not mean that we should not try, through this measure, to do everything that we can just because it is difficult.

Nadine Dorries: Does the Minister accept that the objective of licensing brothels in the Netherlands was not to reduce trafficking, which is seen as an entirely separate problem? The purpose of licensing brothels in the Netherlands was to keep a control of health care, illness, needle use and exchange, and to get outreach programmes to the brothels and for the Government to keep a better hold on what was happening. It was never intended to reduce trafficking and the Minister cannot use that as a justification for what he is saying.

Alan Campbell: I did not say that that was the purpose of the measures introduced by the Dutch. I said that their scheme has not had an effect on those areas about which we are most concerned in this particular measure. A strict liability provision should not preclude our doing everything that we can to keep women safe in other regards and to attend to their health needs. We should do everything that we can not only to have exit strategies but to ensure that there are resources to pay for them. I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Lady; the point that I was making is that the route that the Netherlands has taken has not addressed the issues to which we have given particular importance in our demand review and the measures that we are introducing.

Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?

Alan Campbell: Let me move on, if I may. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a second. I want to go back to the timeline.
In November 2008, the review was published, with a key recommendation that a new offence be introduced to target those who pay for sex with controlled prostitutes. There are already offences for trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain, but the review concluded that in order to tackle exploitation and abuse, legislation should go further and address the source of the problem: the sex buyer who creates the demand for prostitution.
I want to put it on the record for those concerned about the extent and extant of the measure that we understand that some people freely choose to sell sex. However, we also know that many involved in prostitutionboth women and menhave little choice over their involvement and would leave prostitution if they could. Our priority must be to protect those people, the victims of exploitation and abuse.
There is an issue about exit strategies. We accept that resource issues are involved. Of course it is about having services on the ground in the locality and working with local providers to commission services, but we accept that there may be resource implications. I give the commitment that we are considering them.
Clause 13 will make it a criminal offence to make or promise payment for the sexual services of a prostitute if any of that prostitutes activities relating to the provision of those services are intentionally controlled for gain by a third person. The offence will be committed even if the sexual services are provided abroad, but the payment or promise of payment must be made in this country.
Those who pay for sex choose to do so. In doing so, whether they know it or not, they help contribute to the exploitation linked to prostitution. It should notI repeat, it should notbe an excuse to say I didnt know the prostitute was being controlled. Proposed new subsection (2)(b) therefore provides that the new offence will be one of strict liability, which will mean that a person is guilty regardless of whether they knew that a prostitute was controlled for gain.

Evan Harris: Can I take the Minister back to the point at which I sought to intervene? On the Dutch position, would it not be a sensible option to have licensed brothels that are essentially legal? That way, all the health protection work that he wants could be done, and it could be ensured that no one was exploited or controlled for gain under his definition. Then a strict liability offence could be created for anyone who actively chose not to use the legalised service. That would be another option. Has he considered it, and if so, why did he reject it? AlsoI think that this is the third time that I have askedhas he consulted, formally or informally, on the new offence?

Alan Campbell: We considered all the options. As part of that consideration, we included the legalisation of prostitution and, indeed, of brothels. However, the hon. Gentleman must accept that in coming to a decision, we knew that people would look at our approach to prostitution for the message that it sends out. We would be sending mixed messages if we went down the route of legalising prostitution or brothels.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be holding up the Dutch example as a model for us to follow. Let me tell him that the Dutch are reviewing their legislation in that regard. They are not content that it is doing what they want it to do. Therefore, I would caution him against that. They are also, I understand, looking at closing down some brothels, probably for the reasons that I cited earlier. I intend to come back to his earlier point.
Let me make a point about men who visit brothels, and believe or have evidence that the prostitute is trafficked or controlled for gain, and go on to inform the authorities. Much has been made of that, almost as an alternative to the measure that we are bringing forward. We asked officials in the Home Office to find some evidence, other than anecdotal. I have talked to prostitutes who have told me that that happensthey work for an agency and the agency is told by a client that a prostitute that they have visited did not look well, or looked stressed out, and is asked whether there is something going on. I do not dispute that there may be some examples of that, but it cannot be the sole method of tackling the problem. We are talking about relatively few in number, while we may well be talking about a significantly higher number of people who are controlled for gain or who might have been trafficked into this country. Those who visit brothels can already give such information anonymously through Crimestoppers, but actual evidence of men who have done that is difficult to find, so it can hardly be an alternative that could tackle the scale of the problem that we believe needs to be tackled. Although we welcome steps to facilitate such action, it is not a real alternative to the strict liability clause.
The offence recognises that exploitation connected to prostitution goes wider than just trafficking. Controlled, as used in proposed new subsection (3) in clause 13, is based on the existing offence of controlling prostitution for gain under section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The term will cover those who have been forced, compelled or directed to provide sexual services for anothers gain, whether such control was exerted by people traffickers or by others such as violent or coercive pimps. Proposed new subsection (4) provides that the maximum penalty for this offence is a level 3 fine, which is currently £1,000.
Briefly, I shall say something about enforcement, because I understand the concerns raised. We recognise the need for the police to prioritise, and we want them to continue disrupting the activities of those involved in trafficking or coercing people into prostitution. In passing, on two occasions the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon suggested that I had claimed that that would and should be a low priority for the police. It is not my job as a Minister to tell chief constables what their priority should be in an area. How they deploy their resources is a matter for them. Apart from it not being up to me to tell them, I have no recollection of giving that impression at all.

David Ruffley: The Minister is on to an important point about the discretion that chief constables should have. For clarity, are there are any Home Office targets, statutory or non-statutory, that are set for detection of sexual offences, including the new offence in the Bill?

Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are moving away from a targeted approach, apart from with the confidence that people have in their local police. If he is asking how that refers to the targets that we would have now, and what would be intended, may I come back to him? He raised an important point, but the general point concerns the ability of chief police officers to decide on the priorities in their areas. Nevertheless, if that is the law, it is the law.
We believe that it is right that the offence is used to punish those who paid for sex with someone controlled for gain and that it will send a deterrent message to others that may potentially do so. We shall work with the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that the offence is enforced and implemented as effectively as possible, and that it is used in a way that most effectively targets those who take advantage of the most vulnerable persons involved in prostitution.
Briefly, I want to mention another point of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon from our deliberations on Thursday, about making matters worse and the potential for blackmail. He raised a serious point, but people who use prostitutes currently risk blackmail in some instances. Using prostitutes is not something that a significant section of the population would regard as acceptable or appropriate. I take into account his point about a new offence, but I do not think that it would dramatically increase the opportunity for blackmailers to become involved. However, there is always potential for that when punters use prostitutes.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about education is an important one: whether the offence would be drawn to the attention of punters, and the need for education and awareness campaigns. The campaign to raise awareness among potential sex buyers of the extent and nature of trafficking is a specific recommendation in the tackling the demand for prostitution review, which will support the coming into force of the new offence in the Bill, so I can assure her that we will be doing everything that we canalthough there may be some who would plough on regardless, and would not be deterred even if we furnish them with the evidence.
The hon. Lady, together with a number of other people, also raised the question of whether the clause will make matters worse by driving prostitution further underground. Our priority is to protect the most vulnerable people involved in prostitution, who are already the victims of offences such as being controlled for gain or trafficked. Those responsible for controlling the people will already be taking steps to ensure that they will be beyond the reach of the law. That makes it difficult to prosecute, but as I have said, being difficult does not mean that we should not do it. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people, exploited in some of the most horrible ways in some of the darkest places. I cannot see how the strict liability clause will make that situation worse; in fact, I can see ways in which the clause will improve it. So driving prostitution further underground is not an intention, and we do not believe that that will be an effect.
In our earlier deliberations, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised concerns about womens safety. Improving the safety of those involved in prostitutionvoluntarily or otherwiseis fundamental to what we are trying to do. By reducing the demand for prostitutes who are controlled for gain, we are aiming to improve the safety of all prostitutes. But in the present context, it is important to reiterate that the development of the measures tackling demand is part of a broader strategy, which sets a comprehensive approach to dealing with the problems associated with prostitution, including measures to improve the safety of those involved in that.
Prosecutions are already brought against those controlling prostitutes for gain, and in such cases, the police would be able to bring charges against those who have been found to have paid for sex with prostitutes who, at the time, were being controlled. It is right that the law should be extended to ensure that those who play their part in sexual exploitationby contributing to the demandface criminal sanctions.
As one would expect, I have discussed at length the Bill and the whole process that has been undertaken to get us to this point with the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, and we are of one mind on the matter. I pay tribute to him for the way that, having started the process, he has pursued the matter and brought it to the present stage; nobody has done more than him in that regard.
The measure is important, and people will look back on it as a major stepping stone in social reform. From my previous experience as a Whip, I know that sometimes it is difficult to get Members to serve on Committees because they have to spend time on other things. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, the Opposition Whip, say that he had no trouble in doing that. I am not talking about this particular Bill, but about others, and Bills in general, that are less interesting and important than the one that we are dealing with.
I have served on a number of Public Bill Committees, and sometimes it is a case of getting through a Bill and seeing what effect it will have out there, but in ones own mind, some Bills may seem more important than others. I cannot remember working on a Bill that is more important than this one. People who are serving on this Committee will look back on the measure in the future, when strict liability is working, when we would have reduced the demand for prostitution, helped women out of prostitution and helped to tackle some of the worst examples of exploitation and trafficking, and be proud of the work that they have done on the Bill.
We will not always agreewe do not agree on clause 13, in some casesbut I think that time will show that the measure is extraordinarily important. The exploitation linked to prostitution, which it is designed to end, destroys lives and should not be tolerated. The clause is meant to protect the victims of prostitution, but it will do something else. It is meant to send out a clear message to those who would pay for sex with someone controlled for gain that they will be held accountable for their actions. That is what it is about: holding people accountable for their actions who play a part in the vile exploitation of some of the most vulnerable women. That is why I hope that hon. Members will support clause 13. I commend it to the Committee.

Hugh Bayley: The Committee has debated the clause at great length, and I am of the opinion that we have now considered it fully enough to move to a vote.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. Am I able to respond? I do not remember the rules, but I thought that I would be in a position to respond and, having raised the matter in the debate initially and heard the Governments response, explain why we wish to press the clause to a vote. Is that not how it works on clause stand part?

Hugh Bayley: You did not move that the clause stand part of the Bill. You have had an opportunity to put your views clearly on the record. All Committee members have heard them and will take them into account when deciding whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I intend now to move to the vote.

Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 13ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Amendment to offence of loitering etc for purposes of prostitution

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 15, page 14, line 28, after person, insert aged 18 or over.
I apologise for not recognising the appropriate way forward during the last debate, Mr. Bayley. I resisted the temptation to make the points that I wanted to make during a clause 14 stand part debate, as I was not sure whether you would have allowed that either. I shall make a few short remarks about this amendment, because I rather hope[Interruption.] I shall wait until the Minister is ready to hear my remarks. They are very short, and he might miss them if he blinks.
Why have the Government not introduced the provision in my amendment? I want it, if possible, to be debated by the whole House, because the Government have shown an interest in it before. I could go into the reasons why there is a strong argument for decriminalising child prostitution. They involve our human rights responsibilities and our ability to encourage the victims of an offencein this case childrento come forward, which is less likely if they are criminalised themselves.
The Government have given some thought to this matter in the past and indicated a willingness to look at it. I hope that shall I preserve the opportunity for the House as a whole to debate this important issue if I limit my remarks and provide the Government with an opportunity to explain why they feel that this is not the right time to discuss it in Committee.

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his short introduction. I understand his motives, and I hope that my remarks will satisfy him on why we are pursuing this route.
Amendment 1 would amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution to exclude those under the age of 18. I find more consensus with the hon. Gentleman on this matter than I did when we discussed the previous clause, and I assure him that we share his concerns about the issue, although I suspect not his route through it.
We recognise that children who become involved in prostitution are victims of a sexual offence and should be offered appropriate support. We do not want children in those circumstances being subject to punitive criminal sanctions. That view is reflected in the Safeguarding Children in Prostitution guidance issued in 2000. Since the publication of that guidance, the number of people under 18 who have been arrested and prosecuted for that offence has been very low. In practice, the offence is rarely used in relation to those under 18, which we believe is right. For the Committees information, that guidance will be updated specifically on this issue and published in spring.
This issue has been debated previously by Parliament, most recently during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. During those considerations, we outlined our concerns about the potential impact of a change to remove under-18s from the scope of the offence. Those concerns remain. By decriminalising under-18s, we risk sending out a message that although we do not think it acceptable for adults to be involved in street prostitution, we somehow accept that children can be. We recognise that in the overwhelming majority of cases children involved in prostitution should be treated solely as victims. Guidance from agencies makes that clear, and that is consistent with the policy of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which supports the retention of this power.
Howeverthis is the nub of our argumentthere might be exceptional cases where criminal justice intervention is necessary to prevent a harmful situation and allow a child to access support. That is why we want to retain the ability for criminal justice agencies to intervene as a very last resort. Where other agencies fail to engage with young people who, for whatever reason, spurn offers of support and protection, the criminal justice system enables us to remove those young people from the street and any immediate danger. That intervention might make a difference. I acknowledge the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and others, but I assure all hon. Members that our overwhelming priority is supporting rather than prosecuting children who are involved in prostitution.
I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the reasons for that and will withdraw it.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I would be interested to know under what circumstances the Government could not ensure that the victims of this essentially non-consenting offence and exploitation of children were helped other than by being arrested or engaged by the criminal justice system, as he put it.
Can the Minister give me a scenario where the support for childrenwhether that involves social services or exit strategiesis so inadequate that we have to rely on the criminalisation of those victims? Will he write to me and set that out so that I can consider the position further? If he cannot do that, he has not addressed the main concern and the obverse effect by which children may be deterred from coming forward for fear of prosecution under this or other prostitution offences, thanks to the message sent out by this law.
I wish to reflect on what the Minister has said, because it might be appropriate to table a similar amendment so that the House can take a view on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Ruffley: I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 15, page 14, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 246, in clause 15, page 14, line 31, leave out two and insert three.
Amendment 20, in clause 15, page 14, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 247, in clause 15, page 14, line 32, leave out three months and insert one year.
Amendment 22, in clause 15, page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (5).

David Ruffley: Amendments 19, 20 and 22 were tabled to tease out the Ministers thinking on the offence of persistently loitering for the purposes of prostitution. The clause will amend existing law so that the offence is committed only if there is loitering twice or more in a three-month period. On what evidential basis was the provision twice or more in a three-month period arrived at?

Evan Harris: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the proposals tabled by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. I shall cover the whole principle of criminalising the selling of sex and loitering in the clause stand part debate. Why do the Government consider that such a change would make persistence a higher threshold? The clause says that the conduct will be persistent if it takes place on
two or more occasions in any period of three months.
At the moment, if the policing is such that people are arrested for the offence rather than cautioned or warned in respect of an offence that is more frequent and more persistent than that, the Government are making the threshold less persistent whereas the intention is to make it more persistent.
My amendments are probing. Given current police practice, on what basis do the Government think, if they do, that this will raise the threshold to ensure that those who are loitering are not arrested, sent through the criminal justice system and finedthus, forcing them to work again to pay the fineand not brought before the courts more frequently or at a lower threshold?

Alan Campbell: Amendments 19 to 22 would remove the elements of the clause that amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 to require a person to act persistently before an offence has been committed. Members of the Committee will be aware that clause 15 also removes the stigmatising term common prostitute from legislation, and I have noted the wide consensus for that approach.
It is important that, by removing that term, the Bill does not have the intended effect of allowing police to arrest those involved in street prostitution without having to establish an element of persistence that is implied by the term common. I shall refer to current police practice, because it is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The current practice of all police forces in England and Wales is to issue non-statutory prostitutes cautions to people caught loitering on two occasions before charging them with an offence. That cautioning process is used to establish that a person is a common prostitute. Once the term is removed from the legislation, the need to prove persistency is required to ensure that that current practice continues.
We recognise that criminal justice interventions are sometimes necessary for those involved in prostitution, but I reiterate that they should be a last resort. The requirement for a person to act persistently before an offence is committed provides a vital number of opportunities for engagement with services that can offer support and help them to find a route out.
Amendments 246 and 247, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, recognise the need for a requirement of persistence, but would define persistently as three or more occasions in one year, rather than as two or more occasions in three months. The definition of two or more occasions in three months is much more in line with current police practice.
The aim of the hon. Gentlemans definition appears to be to ensure that the offence of loitering or soliciting is used against people involved in street prostitution on a relatively long-term basis by providing that persons would have to be apprehended by police on more occasions but over a longer period. However, it would not necessarily cover what we regard as persistent behaviour, or what the police currently consider persistent in practice. The suggested definition would not prevent the offence of loitering or soliciting from being used against people found to be involved in street prostitution on a daily basis, for example. In that, it is similar in effect to the definition in clause 15.
Unlike the current definition, however, that proposed by amendments 246 and 247 would allow the offence to be used against those who became involved in prostitution intermittently over a period. The hon. Gentleman asked for scenarios earlier, so here is a scenario involving an offence being used against a person found loitering or soliciting on single occasions in February, June and December in one year. His definition would capture such practice; ours would not.
The definition in the hon. Gentlemans amendments could be used more easily against those who sought to leave prostitution but were forced back into it intermittently as a result of circumstances. It could undermine the primarily rehabilitative aim that underpins the current police approach, and that advocated by the co-ordinated prostitution strategy, of using this offence as a last resort. That is reflected in the relatively low number of prosecutions.
Requiring the prostitute to be found loitering or soliciting on three occasions would also prevent earlier intervention where appropriate. We recognise, however, that people will have different views on what counts as persistence, although we believe that our line is clear, defensible and in line with current practice. The term persistently, as currently defined, is vital to ensuring that the offence is aimed at those who are genuinely persistent, and we do not, therefore, wish to remove it by accepting amendment 19, or to alter the definition by accepting amendments 246 and 247.
For the same reasons, we do not wish to accept amendments 20 and 22, which would remove provisions that set out how persistently is defined and thereby help to ensure a consistent approach to policing the offence. With those comments, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

James Brokenshire: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 15, page 14, line 37, leave out subsection (4).
This is a probing amendment. Subsection (4) omits section 2 of the Street Offences Act 1959, which provides a mechanism whereby someone in receipt of a caution for loitering or soliciting can apply to the court to have it overturned. By tabling the amendment, which would delete the subsection, we seek to understand the reasons for its inclusion in the Bill, because the provision provides for the caution to be overturned by application to the magistrates court. The subsection may be a tidying-up exercise, involving a throwback to the arrangements whereby cautions were not necessarily considered to have been spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Substantively, therefore, the subsection may simply be technical, but it is still somewhat unclear to us what the Government propose. Therefore, amendment 21 was tabled to understand more clearly their intentions and whether the subsections retention is appropriate.

Alan Campbell: The short answer is that it is a tidying-up exercise. Amendment 21 would have the effect of maintaining section 2 of the 1959 Act, which allows a person cautioned for loitering or soliciting to apply to a magistrates court to have the caution removed from the police record. The reality is that that section has fallen into disuse and in our view no longer serves a useful purpose. A formal caution can be imposed only if the offender admits their guilt. If not, they can go to court where the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. We therefore conclude that there are sufficient safeguards in the process to ensure that formal cautions will not be wrongly given, and therefore there is no need to retain section 2, which is not used in practice in any event. I understand the hon. Gentlemans concern about removing it, but I hope that he understands the reason why and can withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire: On the basis of the Ministers assurances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: The stand-part debate gives us an opportunity to discuss the way the clause deals with the criminalisation of women who are loitering on the street for the purposes of prostitution, and how it essentially criminalises street prostitution and the women involved in it. We have an opportunity to examine to what extent the Government considered other approaches when thinking about reforming prostitution laws.
I think we established, although I did not get an answer to my question on the three occasions that I asked it, that there has been no formal consultation on any of the proposals, certainly not the clause 13 offence. I do not recall the Government in a formal consultation asking for opinions on whether prostitution should continue to be criminalised in this way. I invite the Committee to consider the argument that more public policy aims can be achieved by not criminalising the women who are engaged in prostitution. One can control it better, protect women better, and ensure that their health and safety is improved. All that can be done without increasing the demand for prostitution, and without increasing demand for the prostitution that involves women who are trafficked and controlled for gain, which is at the abusive and unacceptable end of the spectrum, as we discussed previously.
The problem with the clause is the absence of proper efforts to give women on the street ways out of prostitution, and the inadequate resources. I think the Minister accepted that when he said that there are resource issues, which is a phrase that we all use. Criminalising women drives them more into prostitution and further away from other options, even though the intention may be to protect them.
There is widespread support for ensuring that it is pimps and traffickers who are criminalised and not the women, whether the women are freely consenting to participate in the sex industry or are not consenting and are themselves exploited. The clause essentially maintains the status quo by criminalising women. One could argue that it would be appropriate if there were a properly funded and effective way of helping women to get out of prostitution and to treat their drug problems, and establishing why they are in prostitution in the first place. However, that does not exist in this country and there has been no co-ordinated effort by the Government properly to fund charities and other bodies to go about this work. There are the occasional sex projects, but a massive expansion is needed if there is to be any balanced policy here. It is not balanced at the moment, so what clause 15 seeks to maintain will have side effects.
I draw the Committees attention to a letter that I believe we all received, as it was addressed to our co-Chairman, Sir Nicholas, and copied to the Committee. It is from Tim Barnett, the Member of Parliament responsible for decriminalisation in New Zealand, and it says, essentially, that we should not pass measures such as clause 15, and section 1 of the 1959 Act that it amends and maintains. He gives several arguments why the approach that New Zealand took, which was to use legislation like clause 15 to decriminalise, rather than criminalise the women, is effective. His argument, which I have not heard argued against effectively, is that
prostitution is inevitable and that no country has succeeded in legislating or policing it out of existence.
He accepts that some argue its removal was achieved in China under the Red Guard and Afghanistan under the Taliban, but he argues, as do I, that neither of those are particularly helpful precedents, even with the most right-wing Home Secretaries of either Conservative party that we are inflicted with. [Interruption.] I am jokingI do not want to antagonise the Committee. The Government cannot properly say that clause 15 and the other measures will get rid of prostitution. The question is, therefore, what is the best way of tackling the problems associated with prostitution and protecting women?
Tim Barnett goes on to point out that the tangible harms associated with prostitution that we all accept, including unsafe sex, coercion of people, trafficking, violence by clients and pimps, drug use, and offensive signage, are all offences under the current law, so we do not need a separate prostitution law.
The third point he makes is that the people most likely to be damaged by prostitution in a criminalised environment are the sex workers themselves. That is the view of sex workers. I have not met a sex workerI have met several during the deliberations of the Committeewho supports their criminalisation. Whatever their view on the control of prostitution by pimps and traffickers, or on the strict liability offence that we have just discussed, none of them think that they are helped by their activities being criminalised because it drives them further from the police. It inherently makes women on the street more unsafe if their activities are criminalised because a barrier is put between them and the law enforcement agencies, which might protect them from abuse by clients or pimps.
He also makes the point that the criminalisation of prostitution places responsibility on the police to enforce the law and takes responsibility away from other agencies who should have an interest. That is an entirely unsatisfactory way of dealing with the harms associated with prostitution. The criminal justice system directed against women, as clause 15 continues to allow, is the wrong way to tackle the harms associated with prostitution.
I believe that the hon. Member for Stourbridge asserted that she had heard an opinion that the New Zealand system does not work well. I shall give her the opportunity to intervene in a moment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to think that the policy in this country is wrong, which she will agree with. However, weight has to be given to the parliamentarians who introduced the measure and the fact that they have a proper review system built into their legislation.

Lynda Waltho: The hon. Gentleman refers to the New Zealand example and the legislation, which is interesting and relevant. However, the evidenceor opinionsthat I referred to earlier from Debbie Baker, stated that after five years of decriminalisation
it hasn't really made a difference to the average girl out on the street, except there is more competition and the prices have gone down. Girls are working longer and harder and taking more risks to get a job, they aren't really checking out their clients.
In addition, research by Melissa Farley in San Francisco shows that research does not stop the violence, abuse and stigma built into prostitution, and that it has increased dramatically in New Zealand since decriminalisation. Street prostitution has increased by 200 to 400 per cent. in Auckland alone. That is evidence rather than opinion.

Hugh Bayley: Order. Interventions ought to be fairly short.

Evan Harris: It is clearly opinion. What elevates opinion to the level of evidence is a moot point, but what helps is that it is public. [Interruption.] The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing says, It depends whether you agree with it. Sadly, that is the approach often taken. I was about to say how the matter is dealt with in academia. I do not claim to be an expert on academia or this area of it, but I think that there is a separate way of analysing it. [Interruption.] As he says, the Minister was speaking in jest. It was funny.

Paul Holmes: We have heard the opinion that violence in New Zealand has increased in the five years since decriminalisation, but in a five-year review published in June last year, the New Zealand Government concluded that there had been no increase in prostitution and that women were now more able to report violence. The Governments review was overwhelmingly positive, saying that five years of decriminalisation had worked to improve conditions for sex workers.

Evan Harris: That is helpful, and it is part of my reply to the hon. Lady. This is an important debate.
Let us deal first with the question of opinion versus evidence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and weight of opinion can be important, but on a question of fact and whether intervention A causes outcome B, the ideal is to have a properly designed study. That is difficult on this subject. I suppose that New Zealand could run trials where the law changed on the north island but not the south island, but it chose not to.
In the absence of a controlled trial, one must do what one can with outcomes. However, what one must do in order for opinion to be more helpfully considered as good evidence rather than simply a submission is say at the outset, These are the outcomes that were concerned about. These are the outcomes, at the outset, that were going to measure. Were not going to decide retrospectively what the baselines were when and what particular issues well measure. This is how were going to measure them, and this is how were going to do the review. The review is going to be organised with clear terms of reference. Its going to engage a wide range of pre-existing opinion and expertise. Its going to have an external stakeholder group to check that its not getting carried away internally, and its going to publish its findings so that they can be criticised and debated by other academics or people with contrary opinions.
That is what New Zealand did in its five-year review, coming up with the conclusions that my hon. Friend cited. With great respect to the hon. Lady, simply quoting two people who disagree with the policy is in no way a match for a Government-organised review that considered independent advice and evidence, used predetermined outcome measures and carefully measured the outcomes.

Lynda Waltho: The hon. Gentleman refers to my comments as opinions. In one instance, I might agree. However, I also cited research. The research by Melissa Farley to which I referred draws attention to the New Zealand prostitution review committee, which stated that street prostitution in Auckland more than doubled in just one year, 2006-07. That is not opinion; it is fact.

Evan Harris: So then we come to another issue. Are assertions of figures and findings facts? If the hon. Lady remembers the debates in the House about scientific matters and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, during which we were on the same side, she will recall that facts and figures were displayed by all and sundry. In such circumstances, all that one can do is look at where the figures were published and analyse whether they are a fair statement.
One also must analyse if it is the right outcome measure, to determine if we want to reduce street prostitution per seI do not accept that the hon. Ladys figures are valid, but let us say that they areor if we want to reduce harm. So, if we had a scenario where the number of attacks on women was reduced to a tenth of the original figure but the number of women engaged in street prostitution doubled, clearly the outcome measure that the hon. Lady is concerned about is harm to women and not the number of women in the industry.
That is why I stressed the importance at the beginning of recognising the right outcome measure. Otherwise, one might find oneself in a situation where one says, Yes, its great, weve halved the number of women in street prostitution by our policy, which might be the consequence of clause 15 and the amended section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959, but we have quadrupled the amount of risk that those women face. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want that situation to result.

Nadine Dorries: I imagine that it would be almost impossible to evaluate the number of women working in prostitution until there is legalisation or licensing of brothels, because most of those women may have been working underground or in indoor situations and it would be the legalisation that brought them out into the streets. So it would be almost impossible to say that figures have doubled if one had no idea how to quantify the previous figure.

Evan Harris: Certainly there is an issue about identifying the baseline. However, street prostitution, even when it is unlawful, can be counted by census, because it is on the street and outreach workers can establish the number of women involved, usually by judging the distance between women on the streets where prostitution happens. Clearly, if an activity is decriminalised, it becomes more observable, but the purpose of decriminalisation is obviously not to hide away that activity even more, nor is it necessarily to reduce the number of women involved; it is to reduce the harm. That is why I want to ask the Minister, when he responds to this debate, if the aim of his policy is to reduce the amount of prostitution or if it is specifically to reduce the amount of abusive prostitution and/or to reduce the harm, including forms of harm other than abusive prostitution, associated with this problem.
I have set out why the New Zealand system is a sensible one for the Government to have considered and even to have consulted on. I have also set out why I am satisfied that the review that the New Zealand Government published, which was comprehensive and which was not criticised by our Government for its accuracy or impact, is the way forward.
That brings me back to the point that I raised several times in one of our previous debates. It is that the Government, in order to justify their position, should first consult on their proposals, and if they were going to conduct prostitution law reform they might have consulted relevant groups to find out their views. Furthermore, if the Government were going to review the evidence, which they claim to have done, they must publish that review. Otherwise it is an alleged opinion or conclusion of a review of the published evidence and we are not allowed or able to comment on it, nor are other academics allowed to criticise it or to express support for it. In the absence of a published review, all we can see is that the Government, in this clause and in other clauses, are taking an approach that cannot be said to be evidence-based; indeed, it could be said to be evidence-free.

James Brokenshire: I rise briefly to make some general comments about clause 15. I hear and note the points made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, along with some of the facts, evidence, opinion and possible supposition that he has put forward. However, considering whether or not we should make a significant change to legalise the arrangements for street prostitution would take a significant weight of evidence, persuasion and validation. Although the points that he has made are interesting, I for one am not convinced to take that step in the future, based on what I have heard thus far, although I respect the points that he has made and put on the record.
I have some questions for the Minister about the operation of the clause. Based on what the Minister said in his previous debate on some of the amendments, I understand that the substance of the clause is to regularise the law by deleting the term common prostitute. Persistent being on two or more occasions is, in many regards, a reflection of what the common law is at the moment when seeking to define a common prostitute for the purpose of the events.
Could the Minister confirm what the arrangements are, and would be moving forward, for recording warnings given to someone found to be loitering or soliciting? Would the recording be at a local level or on the police national computer? Where are the records kept? In other words, is the focus and intention of the clause very much localised, rather than in a police force area or crossing police force boundaries, and therefore dependent on local intelligence, with the knowledge of local community officers or local police officers about whether someone has been acting persistentlyon two or more occasionstriggering the offence? Or, is the intention that the clause should be more wide ranging, perhaps necessitating a more formal recording of those warnings given to test whether there has been an offence in those circumstances?
Could the Minister give some indication about what guidance or advice is given to police officers concerning a first occasion? That is, the first time that someone is found to be soliciting in a particular location or loitering for the purposes of prostitution. As many have said in Committee, there is a need to consider other issuesaddiction, mental health, the potential risk of trafficking. Therefore, what inquiries are made by police officers on that first occasion? I hope that they do not simply move someone away, cautioning them on that first occasion without further investigation or consideration. That would not necessarily follow through on some of the substantive problems and issues that might arise.
A criminal justice approach may be appropriateI recognise that, and the proposed amendments simply reflect the existing lawbut so is a better understanding of the interventions available. The reliance on the criminal justice system may not be necessary. Various factors may be picked up at the earlier stage, to signpost people for assistance and prevent an offence from occurring. Therefore, in the context of considering the clause, it would be helpful to get from the Minister a better understanding of current practice and whether ACPO or the Home Office intend to provide any further guidance, revised and updated, in connection with the operation of the clause and the new offence, albeit that they reflect existing law and practice and the common law definitions alluded to by the Minister earlier.

Alan Campbell: I shall respond first to the points raised in our discussion. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked what is the purpose of the measure: to end prostitution or to end harm to prostitutes? Its purpose is to reduce demand, particularly for prostitutes who are controlled for gain and those who are trafficked. It follows logically that the ambition must be to reduce the number of such prostitutes and, globally, the number of women involved in prostitution. It is not a choice between the aims of reducing prostitution or of reducing harm, because they are two sides of the same coin. We disagree, howeverI suspect fairly fundamentallyon whether the criminal justice system should have a significant, or any, part in that process.
The hon. Gentleman asked again about the publication of evidence. The clause 15 measures come not from the demand review, but from the prosecution strategy, which was subject to full consultation and considered a range of published research. The strategy was published in January 2006.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about criminalising women and what the effect of the measure would be in that respect. Again I point out that the intention is not to criminalise women. At every stage of the process, including the process that I shall describe in my remarks about how the provision will work, we seek to give women the advice and support that they need to get out of prostitution. However, they sometimes resist so-called tough love and other forms of intervention, and have to be gently pushed out of prostitution, encouraged to leave, or even coerced a little. They need a framework that will give them every opportunity to leave prostitution, but, if criminal justice intervention helps to focus minds and support and to get them into the right place, we believe that such measures are right. It is not a question of criminalising for its own sake; it is nothing more than using the criminal justice system as a last resort. For some womenperhaps those who are the most damaged, live the most chaotic lives and have found themselves in prostitution in terrible circumstancesit may be necessary to use the measures under discussion.
Let me introduce two other points that the hon. Gentleman did not mention. We are talking about one of the riskiest forms of prostitution, and it is not enough to say that women need to be given just the freedom of choice; we need to do everything we can to give them the evidence, the information and the support they need to make the choice to leave prostitution, which many prostitutes tell us they would prefer to do, because they do not want to live in such circumstances. Another reason why we think that the criminal justice system may have a part to play in some situations is that these women cannot act with impunity: they cause a nuisance and create concern in local communities, so the community has a right to expect that, if they have been given every opportunity to leave prostitution, they will be gently pushed in that direction.
Another point is that, if such a situation arose in my constituency and we wanted these measures to have an effect, not many of my constituents who came to complain would ask, How does academia regard this issue? Has this been tested? Have we been able to challenge this? Which bits of evidence have you actually used to frame this measure? We have to get real in this argument. I do not dispute the need for an evidence-based approach when we make public policy; on the contrary, I have gone out of my way to point out that that is what we have attempted to do and, I believe, succeeded in doing. But we want the measure to have a realistic and practical effect, and that is not a situation wherein academia can hold sway, however important we regard the advice that we take to be.

Evan Harris: We need only think of Ipswich to recognise an important question that needs to be considered: what policies make the lives of women in that situation safer? Given that we are talking about sometimes life-or-death situations, it is important to bring academic evidence to bear. In my opinion, what makes the women safer is that, first, there are well funded exit strategies for them; and, secondly, that we do not force them into more dark, dangerous and isolated places if at all possible, while recognising the balance that must be struck regarding nuisance. Simply to say that a community wants prostitution out of the wayin a wood, for example, where women are at far more riskis not the right approach. The problem is multi-faceted. I hope that the Minister recognises that.

Alan Campbell: That is precisely what the Government are doing by introducing these measures. The hon. Gentleman is taking us back to a debate about either/or, but in our view it is not a question of either/or. We need to put in place the right measures to hold accountable for their actions not only men but, if necessary, prostitutes, and to push them towards the support that many of them tell us they want and need. They are not necessarily the sort of people who would arrive at that conclusion very early in the process.
It is not a matter of just using the criminal law and not having in place the measures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I repeat for the record that we accept that there have to be exit strategies. That is the reality of much of the work being done now, which we want to extend. The implication of having those exit strategies is that women need to be informed but they might also need, in some circumstances, to be pushed towards making those choices; that might be where the criminal justice system has a part to play. I have accepted that there are resource issues and that it is important that we have proper local services that are properly resourced. We are currently considering what other resource implications there might be. My final plea is that people should not go away thinking that this is either/or matter, because it is not.

Sally Keeble: May I give my hon. Friend an example that supports his case? There is a young girl in Northampton whom I have met several times; she comes from a well-to-do family, but she got involved in drugs and became a prostitute, and she has been sleeping in a garage. She is lovely girl, but she has had a rough time. Innumerable efforts have been made to help her, but however much people try to help, she keeps slipping back to drugs and prostitution. The bottom line is that there are public nuisance issues and that other offences are being caused. Much though society has tried to help her, it also has an obligation to protect itself and others who might be affected by her behaviour. My hon. Friend is right to say that there has to be a carrot and stick approach.

Alan Campbell: I am grateful for that example, which illustrates the point very well. We have to consider the practical effects of the measures in our constituencies and across our country. My hon. Friend has provided a very good example.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: We must also consider any unintended consequences. The New Zealand review picked up on the fact that decriminalisation led to the spread of prostitution into residential areas. That is a growing and significant problem in New Zealand. Our aim is to address such problems better in the Bill. We also know from the experience in Amsterdam that many women are being trafficked there specifically for the sex industry, so that is another unintended consequence of decriminalisation. It is not as straightforward as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon suggests.

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing not only words of wisdom, but practical advice on the lessons that we can learn. Her point illustrates the importance of looking at what is happening in other countries and how they are tackling the problem. We can learn lessons from their experiences without necessarily following the routes that they have chosen.
The clause amends the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, as set out in section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. It removes the term common prostitute, as I have said, and requires that a person has acted persistently before an offence is committed. That reflects current police practice to arrest a person for the offence only if he or she has been cautioned on at least two previous occasions, or has been convicted of the offence.
The Governments co-ordinated prostitution strategy, which was published in January 2006 following extensive public consultation, signalled our intention to make these changes. The measures were included in the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, but had to be withdrawn due to time pressure. We made it clear then that we would reintroduce them at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps the only area of unanimityat least there was onewas support for removal of the term common prostitute from the statute, as it is outdated and offensive. The clause therefore removes the term.
The clause also inserts the word persistently so that an offence will now be committed by
a person who persistently loiters or solicits in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution,
as there are better ways of dealing those who are apprehended only once. Persistence is defined as conduct that
takes place on two or more occasions in any period of three months.
In saying that the process we are seeking to introduce is in line with current practice, the hon. Member for Hornchurch asked what currently happens on the ground. The truthful answer is that it varies from one area to another. In some instances, police officers approach prostitutes and bring to their attention what they believe is happening; they may also offer them advice and guidance. They might proceed to a prostitutes caution in the first instance, but in reality that might not happen at that early stage. Practice varies across the country, but there is good practice, and the purpose of the proposal is to extend that good practice. We are working with ACPO on proposals to ensure that there is consistency across the country, based on what works. I hope that I have explained that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked how warnings will be monitored and the information kept. We regard this as a local matter, although not exclusively. We expect prostitutes to be well known to the police in the area, so it is not a question of looking to a national system. The matter is best addressed locally and that is how we will proceed.
Prosecution of the offence currently relies on the identification of the offender as a common prostitute. As I said, the practice of all police forces is to use a non-statutory prostitutes caution to demonstrate that a person is a common prostitute. Offenders are not prosecuted until at least two prostitutes cautions have been given and witnessed. The caution is not a formal prerequisite of conviction, but it has become the method by which evidence is adduced to prove that an individual charged for the first time is a common prostitute. That generally takes the form of a brief administrative process, during which it will be recorded that two police officers have witnessed the individual loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The prostitutes caution differs from a statutory caution in that it does not require an admission of guilt. That practice will continue to be used to prove that conduct has taken place on two or more occasions in any three-month period.
Other forms of support may be in place for women seeking to leave prostitution. As well as establishing persistence, the cautioning process provides an opportunity to direct the individual to services that can offer them support to address the problems that have led them into prostitution and to help them to find a route out. That is not a new approach. It was set out in the original Home Office circular issued in 1959 that was sent to police. Although the language of that circular is somewhat archaic, the welfare approach remains valid. With increasing partnership between the police and voluntary organisations providing support to those involved in prostitution encouraged by the strategy, there will be more opportunity for the police to provide access to such support to good effect. As I said, we are working with ACPO on that policy.
The clause will repeal section 2 of the 1959 Act, which allows a person cautioned for loitering or soliciting to apply to a magistrates court to have the caution removed from the police record. As I said, that section has fallen into disuse and no longer serves a useful purpose.

Evan Harris: In defending the clause and section 1 of the 1959 Act, has the Minister taken into account the potential for an increase in street prostitution because of the clampdown on brothels envisaged in other parts of the Bill, such as clause 13 and the proposals for brothel closure orders? Does the Minister accept that if brothels are closed, whatever the motive for doing so, there is likely to be an increase in street prostitution unless prostitution suddenly ceases to be an option? That will cause an increase in risk and an increased burden on the policing of the offence.

Alan Campbell: I will certainly not say that I accept that as a likely consequence. I think that we should have this debate when discussing closure orders. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the police are to be given carte blanche powers to close any brothel; he forgets that the measure is a targeted approach. We want to close establishments that contain womenthey are predominantly womenwho are being controlled for gain and/or have been trafficked. Why would such women want to remain in prostitution and why would they want to move from brothels to the streets? We are trying to tackle the problem at source. Some of the establishments that the hon. Gentleman talks of are holding and exploiting women, and that is what we propose to clamp down on. It is not the case that those women will necessarily find themselves on the streets.

Nadine Dorries: The objectives are laudable, but on 18 December a raid took place on a brothel where nobody had been trafficked and no one was being controlled for gain, yet the police threatened to charge the receptionist with controlling for gain. What measures will the Minister put in place to ensure that the police bear the clauses objectives in mind and do not use it to close down every brothel they know to be in existence?

Alan Campbell: We are working closely with the police to simplify what can be difficult judgments and to ensure that the legislation works correctly. The orders under discussion were not in place for the December raid the hon. Lady mentions. The police presumably had some evidence on which to act. When we discussed amendments to clause 13, we debated the issue of what other people in a brothel might be doing and whether that can be construed as control for gain. During that discussion, I set out very clearly that we do not believe the definition includes someone who is, for example, keeping and organising a womans diary, or someone who is at the brothel specifically to keep the women safe.
My answer to the specific question I was asked about madams is that it would depend on their actual role. If a madams sole purpose is to keep the women safe and there is no evidence that she is controlling them for gain in the way set out by the Act and by case lawthe court is clear on the mattershe would not fall foul of the law. However, if there is evidence that she is trafficking, exploiting or clearly controlling women for gain, there can be no excuse for allowing her brothel to continue. There is no simple answer. The hon. Lady says that the aims are laudable, but we have to make the measures workable too. We believe that the measures will have the desired effect.
We are confident that continuing the police practice of issuing prostitutes cautions provides adequate opportunity for an individual to protest that they were not loitering or soliciting. If there is real doubt about whether an individual is soliciting, charges are unlikely to be brought. In the event of a prosecution, persistence will need to be proved, and at that stage the man or woman will be able to explain what they were doing when said by the police to have been soliciting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 16

Orders requring attendance at meetings

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 16, page 15, line 6, after section, insert
by making an order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 24, in clause 16, page 15, line 8, at end insert
(such order requiring attendance at meetings being referred to as a meeting requirement order for the purposes of this section).

James Brokenshire: The provisions of clause 16 effectively follow on from those of the previous clause in that, rather than levying a fine for an offence under clause 15, the court may deal with a person convicted of such an offence by making an order requiring the offender to attend three meetings with a supervisor. That effectively reproduces, with schedule 1 and with some modifications, proposals that were dropped from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Orders to promote rehabilitation are now more neutrally described as:
Orders requiring attendance at meetings.
Under the previous provisions, it would have been permissible for an offender arrested for breach of an order to be detained for up to 72 hours if he or she could not be brought immediately before the appropriate court. We will obviously go on to discuss the detail in schedule 1.
Amendment 23, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, is the principal amendment in the group. It is designed to test the Governments approach to the orders and to question how effective they will be. If we assumeagain, this is an assumption made for the purposes of debatethat a criminal justice approach is right or appropriate in certain circumstances, what should that approach and response be? In the previous debate, we heard from the Minister that the 1959 welfare approach remains valid, so I assume that he accepts that some form of positive intervention to try to change behaviour and prevent harm is appropriate, in addition to or as a supplement to the existing, more traditional criminal justice punishment approach. If we follow that line of logic, the clause merely provides for a requirement to attend meetings. The provisions go on to say that the purpose of those meetings is to
address the causes of the conduct
and to help people to
find ways to cease engaging in such conduct in the future.
The amendment seeks to test why an alternative approach could not be takena community order, for example, with a drug rehabilitation requirement attached to it, or some other support mechanism. Would that not be a more appropriate way of addressing some of the underlying causes, challenges or issues that might be connected with the criminal behaviour in question?
In determining what may be appropriate, a court will receive various reports from probation and other services about the offender. Those reports will set out and test what requirements or sanctions might be appropriate to address aspects of the individuals behaviour. Why does the Minister believe that the meeting requirement will be effective? There is some scepticism about whether making someone who has been convicted of an offence simply attend three meetings will be effective. It is all very well wishing that something might happen, but where is the follow-through?
A court order, which reflects a more compulsion-oriented approach, could be more effective in providing assistance and support mechanisms in relation to drugs and other problems. As we know, sadly, many people involved in prostitution are also addicted to drugs and rely on a pimp for their supply of drugs as well as for marketing their services. How can we use the criminal justice approach in a constructive way to direct and ensure that support services are followed through and acted on? Instead of simply saying that there will be some meetings, could a different, more effective approach be considered? That is why we propose the reference to section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is the signpost to those community orders.
I hope that the Minister will clarify why the Government have taken this approach. Will he consider looking at whether it is appropriate and whether alternative approaches, providing support through a community punishment, might be more effective and achieve some of the ends that Members on both sides of the Committee want to be achieved?

Paul Holmes: I have a brief point to make that follows on from the comments that have just been made. I wonder about the rationale behind the three meetings that somebody convicted of loitering for prostitution could be sent to under the clause. Will the Minister explain how we arrived at three? What is the effectiveness of three meetings? Are they three half-hour meetings or three one-day meetings? What duration are we talking about? Who will organise the meetingsthe National Offender Management Service or private sector bodies that have won the contract? Will they be paid for from the NOMS budget or will money be made available?
There appear to be no arrangements to ensure that completion is noted by the court and the police. Can the order be a repeat order or is it a one-off? Can someone be sentenced to three meetings and a year later be sentenced to three meetings again as a repeat offender? Under proposed new section 1A(4)(b), which is in clause 16(3), the court will, if sentencing somebody to attend the three meetings within a six-month period, specify for up to six months where the person resides. That could be seen as fairly draconian. How will it be monitored and what are the penalties if the person moves in that period of up to six months?

Nadine Dorries: Will the Minister clarify two things? First, if a prostitute is arrested and attends a magistrates court, the original offence for loitering will be withheld while the three meetings take place. If the meetings do not take place because the prostitute does not attend for whatever reason, or if she does not reside where she is supposed to, will she be prosecuted only for the original offence or for two offencesthe original offence and the offence of not attending the meetingsand be further criminalised?
Clause 16 is probably the sloppiest part of the Bill. Is it not possible better to define the kind of services that will be administered during the three meetings so as to specify that health services will be administered and by whom? Rather than a person being identified as an appropriate person, can we not say that that person should have various health qualifications and be specialised in drug rehabilitation or in the diseases or illnesses that a prostitute contracts as part of her work? Can it not be somebody who has the ability and the appropriate qualifications to deal with the problems that occur?

Hugh Bayley: Given that the last two contributions have ranged more widely than the narrow questions raised in Mr. Brokenshires amendment, I will take further general contributions on the clause and we will then dispense with the clause stand part debate.

Evan Harris: That makes it straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked some specific questions and I hope that the Minister will have time to get the replies in order.
I wish to raise a few general points about the approach taken by the measure. It will not surprise the Minister that my points are on a previous theme, which is that those concerned with the welfare of prostitutes, such as the Safety First coalition, have made clear their opposition to that approach. This is essentially compulsory rehabilitation with the threat of imprisonment if people do not go through the process.
There is the question whether compulsory rehabilitation is a contradiction in terms. The problem with a requirement for women to attend meetings is that many prostitutes have chaotic lives; they are vulnerable and a very high proportion have children, often young children. I pay regard to that fact, and I hope that the Minister will do the same.
Although the Government say that people are allowed a reasonable excuse for not attending a meeting, the intention behind backing up the provision with a stronger penalty of a fine or even imprisonment is likely to make matters worse, as I and the Safety First coalition believe. As I have said, the Bill contains no provision for resources to address the problems facing the women. For example, if the clause had a provision whereby their needs and financial difficulties had to be assessed under statute, with a duty of care placed on local authorities or Government agencies that would receive resources to meet the needs and problems of the women, there would be more justification for it. However, it refers only to penalties. There is inadequate resourcing of support for women and all we have received is an offer from the Government to look into how they can better resource the services. The approach is imbalanced.
Because of the threat of ultimate sanction, women will be forced underground into more isolated and dangerous areas to avoid arrest, referral and possible imprisonment. The Safety First coalition argues that there is evidence that compulsory rehabilitation schemes on arrest would not help, and that it would be far better to decouple rehabilitation, in a properly resourced way, from the criminal justice system.
The Minister will know of the widespread welcome for the Corston report. It was published two years ago, and recommended against imprisoning women for non-violent offences.

Hugh Bayley: Order. We have had a wide-ranging debate on the overall thrust of the Governments proposals to place criminal responsibility on the users of prostitutes. The clause deals with procedures in relation to orders issued by a court to a prostitute for attending meetings. We cannot repeat the wider debate, but if the hon. Gentleman has comments about the orders, now would be the appropriate time to discuss them as we shall not be having a clause stand part debate.

Evan Harris: I am a little confused, because I have not talked about the imprisonment of women and the impact that that would have.

Hugh Bayley: Imprisonment is the wrong word. I think the hon. Gentleman understands my point. This is not the right debate in which to repeat the general arguments relating to clause 13. Clause 16 relates to orders for attending meetings, and he should confine his remarks to such matters.

Evan Harris: I seek your guidance, Mr. Bayley, because I thought that clause 16 and schedule 1 included a standby measure as part of the new law under which women will face imprisonment if they do not attend the meetings, and that that was part and parcel of the provisions.

Hugh Bayley: We will have a separate debate on the schedule.

Evan Harris: I have tabled an amendment to the schedule, so I am happy to remark on the impact of imprisonment then. I was seeking not to duplicate matters, but to make new points. I accept your guidance, Mr. Bayley, on when to talk about imprisonment.

Alan Campbell: I will address some specific issues, but I suspect that we shall talk about them again at a later date. The hon. Member for Chesterfield asked why there is a need for three meetings. I said earlier that we regard them as a gateway to other activities and services that can be accessed. They are likely to create the foundation on which the individual can continue to access support and advice to exit prostitution. The duration of the meeting is up to the supervisor.
Where will the supervisors come from? We will expect them to be drawn from people with expert knowledge in this field, such as those working for local voluntary organisations dealing with drugs or whatever. Again, we return to the issue of funding. Some local neighbourhoods have access to funding that is ring-fenced to address issues around deprivation that are pertinent to their area. For example, if they were to make tackling street prostitution a priority, as it is in some neighbourhoods, the resources would be there. Again, we need to take into consideration any additional demands on resources.
There can be a repeat order, but the longer that that goes on, the less likely it is that the court will regard it as an appropriate way to deal with the person. It might then find an alternative way to hold them to account for what they are doing. As for how we monitor those moving to other areas, the order will not be able to stipulate where a person lives. However, moving out of an area and not continuing to attend meetings will be regarded as a breach. In that case, the supervisor will refer the matter back to the court, which will assess whether there is a reasonable reason for the breach. If there is not, it may then decide whether to intervene in some other way.
Some myths were perpetuated in some comments, not least those from the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Mid-Bedfordshire. People will not be prosecuted for not attending meetings. If the supervisor informs the court that, after an order has been placed, a person is in breach of that order, the court can issue a summons. At that point, the person will quite rightly be held to account for not responding to it. In that process, if the order is not taking the prostitute in that particular direction, we can go back to the original offence and look at re-sentencing. I hope that that answers most of, if not all, the points.
I want briefly to address the amendments in particular. Amendment 23 was introduced in a very reasonable way by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, who made a genuine attempt to discover the rationale behind the measure and why we will not be able to accept his proposals.
Amendment 23 would enable the courts to impose a community order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The aim is to ensure that the range of options in drug rehabilitation requirements, which can be imposed by a community order, would be available for those convicted of loitering or soliciting. However, we consider that the proposed orders will enable those convicted of the offence to access the services that the hon. Gentleman talked about. Therefore, it is not necessary to make the amendment to allow for that, given the other consequences that will flow from turning this new sentence into a community order.
In particular, the maximum penalty for an offence of loitering or soliciting is currently a fine, which we think is proportionate. Allowing a community order to be imposed will increase the maximum penalty for this offence, because a community order is considered significantly more serious. We do not believe that the seriousness of this offenceserious though it isjustifies an increase in the maximum penalty.
It is also worth noting that the breach of an order can ultimately lead to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks. A prison sentence is not a possible outcome for failing to comply with an order to attend meetings, though it is for not responding to a summons. If we allowed the imposition of a community order, we would increase the risk of vulnerable persons involved in street prostitution being sent to prison for a relatively minor offence. Furthermore, allowing courts to impose the more onerous sections of a community order would risk undermining that, as courts would not necessarily impose rehabilitative requirements. They could, for example, impose an unpaid work requirement that did not necessarily address the issue of the prostitute.
The aim of the order, which will be introduced by clause 13, is to provide an alternative to a fine. That may help to break the cycle of people being fined for loitering or soliciting and having to return to the streets to earn money to pay the fine. It is not necessary to raise the maximum penalty for the offence for that alternative to be available. That is the point of the order. It is intended to allow those who are willing to engage with support services to access such services without the pressure of paying off a fine. In that way, it allows for a more rehabilitative rather than a punitive approach when that is appropriate.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.